Practice for Synthesizing Sources
Synthesizing Sources – the CYA strategy for ethical writing in the sciences
Why learn to synthesize sources? Because, in the medical sciences, quoting is frowned upon. Using a direct quote
brings undue attention to language when science would prefer we concentrate on ideas. One of the best guides to
understanding ethical writing and avoiding plagiarism is Miguel Roiq’s Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and
other questionable writing practices: A guide to ethical writing at http://facpub.stjohns.edu/%7Eroigm/plagiarism/.
Currently, Dr. Roiq makes his work freely available as either an .html document or a word document that can be
saved (if used for a class, please write and ask Dr. Roiq’s permission). In brief, Rioq points out a paradox in
science writing that is notoriously difficult to address:
Writers cannot
plagiarize
Writers must
paraphrase
Technical language
has no synonyms
Quoting is
discouraged
What is a writer to do? The answer is SYNTHESIZE SOURCES. When you discuss the literature on a topic,
you have the responsibility to read more than a single source for your information. Gone are the days of Wikipedia
and Encyclopedia Britannica. You must actively integrate your sources. Why? You stand a lesser chance of
committing unintentional plagiarism if you use more than one main source for your work. If 4 people have
basically said the same thing, then when you say it – and cite all 4 sources – you are “proving” the publication
history behind the idea and the reader is more confident that you know what you are talking about. Multiple
citations are most common when providing definitions and explanations of a topic.
General Tips for Synthesizing Sources
1)
Organize task by deciding what information you are looking for (Definitions? Arguments? Practices?
Theories?).
2)
Mark similar information from each source in same manner (use the same color pen to highlight or
underline; use a number system, etc.). So, mark all the information which is a definition in the same way,
then all the examples, then the explanation, etc. If that is too complicated for the text, then mark
information that you know is central and information that you are pretty sure is peripheral in different
ways.
3)
Make lists of information which is shared among sources
a.
List 1: summary of info that is in all sources (probably means this is CENTRAL information)
b.
List 2: summary of info that is in some sources (could be CENTRAL, could be PERIPHERAL)
c.
List 3: separate lists of info that is NOT shared among sources (probably PERIPHERAL -meaning, specific to the source you are reading, but not necessarily to your research)
4) Write your explanation incorporating the information from Lists 1, 2, and 3 -- overall, it's best to start with
the information shared by all the sources, and then incorporate less shared information. Peripheral information
should be included last, if at all. If what you really need to provide the reader is a solid foundation for
understanding the concept, then peripheral (idiosyncratic) information is confusing. On the other hand, if you are
providing an in-depth discussion of something, then idiosyncratic information has a place in the writing.
Practice for Synthesizing Sources
Suggestions for Citations: Put citations where they make the most sense (from McMillan, 2006,
149):
Whichever documentation system you use, put each citation close to the information you wish to acknowledge.
Do not automatically put cited material at the end of every sentence. For example, the following style...is
ambiguous:
Pollination of Linaria vulgaris has been studied in both the field and
the laboratory (Arnold, 1962; Howard, 1979).
Did Arnold do his studies in the field and Howard in the laboratory? Or Howard in the field and Arnold in the
laboratory? Or both authors in both settings? Moving the first citation clarifies the situation:
Pollination of Linaria vulgaris has been studied in both the field
(Arnold, 1962) and the laboratory (Howard, 1979).
If you actually meant to say that both Arnold and Howard did both types of studies, then you are better off
rewording the sentence:
Arnold (1962) and Howard (1979) have studies the pollination of Linaria
vulgaris in both the field and the laboratory.
Practice! Use the excerpts below to practice synthesizing sources. Use appropriate APA style for in-text
citations.
Explanation: (separation) anxiety disorder and school refusal
Kearney, C.A. (Oct 2005) Addressing School Refusal Behavior: Suggestions for Frontline Professionals.
Children & Schools, 27 (4): 207-16 (excerpt from page 207)
Hanna, G.L., Fischer, D.J., Fluent, T.E. (2006) Separation Anxiety Disorder and School Refusal in Children
and Adolescents, Pediatrics in Review. 27:56-63
Separation anxiety disorder (SAD), however, is a common childhood anxiety disorder that often involves persistent
problems with attending school or other activities away from home because of fear of separation. The fear
associated with leaving the safety of parents and home may escalate into tantrums or panic attacks and cause
significant interference with academic, social, or emotional development. (pg. 56)
Practice for Synthesizing Sources
Studies assessing childhood anxiety disorders have repeatedly demonstrated that children who have SAD often have
other psychiatric disorders. In clinical samples of children who have SAD, approximately 50% are diagnosed with
at least one other anxiety disorder and 34% with a depressive disorder. Studies of depressed prepubertal children
have found concurrent separation anxiety disorder in 40% to 60% of subjects. When SAD and a depressive disorder
coexist, SAD precedes the depression in approximately 67% of cases. (pg. 58)
Definition: Laminectomy
Harvey, C.V., (Nov 2005) Spinal surgery patient care. Orthopaedic Nursing, Vol. 24, Issue 6
page 433)
(excerpt from
Laminectomy
This is the removal of part of the laminae and possibly a portion of the ligamentum flavum, facet joints, and any
protruding osteophytes to allow room for nerve roots and to expose the abnormal part of the disc. This is often
enough to decompress the affected nerve and relieve the symptoms. Pain relief is often not instantaneous
postoperatively because it takes time for the inflammation to the nerve to subside. This is effective with spinal
stenosis (Best, 2002).
Chen, A.L. and Spivak J.M. (Aug 2003) Degenerative lumbar spinal stenosis: options for aging backs.
Physician & Sportsmedicine, Vol. 31, Issue 8 (html, section “Operative Management,” paragraphs 4 & 6)
Laminectomy. The standard decompression procedure, called laminectomy, involves removal of the spinous
processes and central portion of the laminae overlying the affected stenotic segments (figure 4). Hypertrophic
arthritic facet joints are shaved to relieve compression along the central spinal canal, lateral recess, and neural
foramen as needed.
The results of standard operative decompression for lumbar spinal stenosis are encouraging. One metaanalysis
showed an average of 64% of patients had a good or excellent outcome after surgery.[sup26] Operatively managed
patients have significantly better outcomes at 1-year evaluation when compared with nonoperatively treated
patients, despite the fact that operative candidates tended to have increased symptoms before surgery. Risk factors
associated with a worse outcome after operative management include diabetes mellitus, osteoarthritis of the hip,
preoperative degenerative scoliosis, and preoperative lumbar fracture.[sup27,28]
Atlas, S. J., Delitto, A. (Feb 2006) Spinal Stenosis: Surgical versus Nonsurgical Treatment. Clinical
Orthopaedics and Related Research. Volume 443, 198-207
(excerpt from page 202)
Laminectomy
Broadly, surgical treatment is designed to alleviate compression on the neural tissues in the central canal and/or
lateral recesses. Decompression or laminectomy of the lumbar spine at one or more levels has been the standard
treatment for spinal stenosis involving the central canal despite little evidence from comparative trials of
nonsurgical treatment or alternative surgical interventions.29 The operative challenge is to provide adequate
decompression of the neural elements while maintaining spinal stability. Iatrogenic instability can be decreased by
preserving the facet joint and the pars interarticularis. A variety of different surgical techniques, including
laminotomy, laminarthrectomy, laminoplasty, and microscopic decompression have been reported with a general
goal of providing adequate clinical outcomes with less invasive decompression.61,72 However, the relative
effectiveness and complications of various decompressive procedures remain uncertain.30
Practice for Synthesizing Sources
There are no large randomized studies to show the relative benefit of surgical decompression compared to
nonsurgical treatment. Short-term results from a randomized trial presented to date only as an abstract report
improved outcomes associated with surgical treatment.54 Among published studies, a single randomized study
compared 13 surgically treated and 18 nonsurgically treated patients with spinal stenosis.2 Although Amundsen et
al 2 reported better outcomes with surgery, 56% of nonsurgically treated individuals crossed over to surgery after a
median of only 3.5 months, outcomes were judged by physicians not patients, and no statistical comparisons were
done.